These events raise questions about the tactics and strategy for getting better banks – is the tide of anger against banks adequate for change? If not, what on Earth are the forces that will make banks virtuous?

Haldane, executive director for financial stability at the Bank, was warmly received by a packed hall almost dizzily grateful for his openness, courtesy and the sheer fact of his being there at all. His speech has been widely reported – but it is still astounding that he clearly thanked Occupy for "getting it right" on both morality and analysis in its argument. "We have seen, first, inequality-induced crisis and, latterly, crisis-induced inequality. The 99% have faced double-jeopardy."

Banks were the most heavily leveraged institutions on the planet; they had been a protected species with implicit state subsidies; industries outside the dazzling money machine of banking were starved of sunlight. And so on. But by the time the audience had grasped the enormity of what the banking industry had done to them and to our country, Haldane was warning against a desire for "heads on sticks".

Which is where UBS comes in. The 3,000 UK heads on sticks might be an awful warning that Haldane is right – that bearing down too heavily rather than reforming a City that contributes 2.5% of GDP on overseas sales of financial services of £38bn is folly. But UBS is embroiled in the unbelievable tale of one of its traders gambling away £1.4bn. Anyway, who can defend the wildly speculative investment trading of UBS and all the others, it having caused the 2008 crisis and thus most of our current woes? And historically jobs in investment banking have always ebbed and flowed, though that's of little comfort to the sacked.

But this week the battle lines in the great banking reform debate have certainly got even more interesting. Haldane, from the very inside of banking, believes the great reformation has begun. "The new heads of the UK's biggest banks have committed to restoring trust in their institutions and improving their social usefulness." The areas of culture, capital, compensation (bonuses), credit and competition were all being tackled. We could vote with our bank accounts and move our money. There were banks like Handelsbanken, local, non-speculative, advisory not sales target-focused, setting up across the UK. He asked for Occupy's support for the reformers.

Thus the present problem was identified. These are technical remedies to regulate the banking industry but the powerful political responses are nowhere to be seen – except in the drive to austerity and the hacking back of the state.

Haldane surely pinpointed the systemic failures in our other institutions, the ones that should be shouldering much of the reform, as well as the degree to which the banking industry has captured so much of them. Where, asked Duncan Weldon of the TUC, is our political economy? Where is the comparator with the multimillion-pound banking lobbying industry – pointed out by the Financial Inclusion Centre – where is the leadership that will cut through over-complex, misleadingly named competitive processes?

Repurposing the role of banks – for instance, away from their grotesque interest in property loans, up from 5% to 18% of GDP in the decade from 2000 – towards the real economy, should be a no-brainer. But the big beasts lining up to take on this fight are strangely few in number.

Occupy is a winningly messy organisation – though it meticulously organised this week's event – so it probably won't sign up alongside Haldane. Its thought seems to be that as long as 50% of Conservative party funding comes from the big banks and there is a lack of real political will to change banking structure, Occupy will stay outside the tent. The search for powerful allies to reform the banks is still on.